Our leaders had to know that their invitation to President Obama would imply a general commendation of the man and his policies. In the conflicts over those policies, our leaders have committed, in perception but also in fact, the name and prestige of Notre Dame to the side that is hostile to the imperatives of faith and reason affirmed by the Catholic Church. Our leaders are not only dismissive but also contemptuous toward the Church. The first thing Bishop D'Arcy knew about it was when he was told that Obama had accepted the invitation.

Rice then eloquently describes the horrendous anti-life policies Obama has promulgated. He is especially strong in making points about embryo stem cell research (ESCR) we will be funding as taxpayers: " Federal funding would make ESCR a profitable,if useless, industry.

Professor Rice finishes his article with this:

Our leaders act in what they think is the best interest of Notre Dame. But that is no excuse. The invitation should be withdrawn. It implies no personal animosity to suggest that Fr. Jenkins and the other Fellows and Trustees responsible for this fiasco should resign or be removed.

What would be a proper response? On-site demonstrations would be counterproductive. You can petition or write to our leaders. But the appeal should be made instead to a higher authority. An alumnus has suggested that students, faculty, staff and friends of Notre Dame ought to - and we will - pray a continuous Rosary of reparation at the Grotto during the time of Commencement, from two to four on Sunday, May 17th. This would not interfere with Commencement which is on the other side of campus. It would not be a demonstration or protest. No signs, marches, or disruption. Just peaceful prayer, in silence or aloud, by individuals and families. If you can't make it to the Grotto, pray the Rosary during that time wherever you are. Incidentally, Professor Mary Ann Glendon, the Laetare Medal recipient, would make a better use of her time at the Grotto than as a warm-up or wind-up act at Commencement.

Parking is limited, but you can park off campus and walk to the Grotto. There should be no objection by Notre Dame officials to students, faculty, staff and friends of Notre Dame peacefully going to the Grotto to pray. It makes no difference how many show up. The objective is simply a union of prayer to make reparation and to petition Notre Dame, Our Lady, for Notre Dame, our University.

March 30, 2009

From Ireland Family and Life website and email. We include the whole message, including contacts at the bottom

Important EU Vote on Embryonic Stem Cells

The Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) Committee of the European Parliament will vote tomorrow (Tuesday, 31st March) on a proposed new directive which could force member states to use human embryonic stem cells rather than animals for the testing of new drugs. Article 13 of the draft directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes - 2008/0211(COD) - would prevent member states from allowing animal testing where there are “scientifically sound, justifiable and practical alternatives that are in line with societal standards”.

While it is legitimate to attempt to reduce the amount of animal testing, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the reason for animal testing is to avoid exposing human subjects to potentially harmful substances. Using human embryonic stem cells requires the destruction of human embryos. The destruction of human embryos cannot be treated as a lesser evil than testing on animals.

Up to now, the EU has respected the refusal of individual member states to permit research on human embryos within their borders. In its present form, this directive could allow for a radical shift in policy in that regard.

It seems that this particular initiative is being hurried through in order to have it take effect before the present Parliament is replaced at EU-wide elections in June. So important an issue merits proper discussion and should not be rushed.

Please contact your MEP and members of the AGRI Committee asking them to vote for amendments which would ensure that member states will not be obliged to use human embryonic stem cells (including amendments 175, 176, 227, and 228).

The bishops of Washington, D.C., and Arlington, Virginia, confirmed publicly they would uphold the declaration of her ordinary, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, stating that Governor Sebelius should not present herself for communion.

You are, no doubt, being inundated with letters, phone calls and emails objecting to the decision of Notre Dame to invite President Obama to give the commencement address this year and to receive an honorary doctorate from your university.

I feel compelled to write to you as a brother priest to express my own dismay at this decision which I see as dangerous for Notre Dame, for the Church, for this country, and frankly Father, for your own soul.

I have had the honor to speak at Notre Dame over the years in my capacity as the president of the Acton Institute. I recall the sparkling discussion and questions from the student body, notably from a number of the Holy Cross Seminarians. I have, in fact, been invited to your campus on a number of occasions and on my last visit I was given a statue of the Lladro Blessed Mother in appreciation of my speech. I was told the statue was blessed by Fr. Hesburgh. It has occupied a special place in our religious community since then.

Father, I have no degree or awards from Notre Dame to return to you to indicate how strongly I feel about this scandalous decision. So here is what I have decided to do:

I am returning this statue to your office because what once evoked a pleasant memory of a venerable Catholic institution now evokes shame and sorrow. The statue is simply too painful a reminder of the damage and scandal Notre Dame has brought to the Church and the cause of human life in this decision.

Moreover, I will encourage the young people from my parish and within our diocese to consider universities other than Notre Dame for their college career and I will further encourage other priests in my diocese to do the same. I will also discourage Notre Dame alumni to make donations to the University.

And you may rest assured that I will make this sentiment known from my pulpit and in other public outlets as the occasions present themselves.

This is not a matter of abortion (I presume we agree on how evil it is); nor is it about free speech (you could have invited the president to a discussion for that). This is about coherence. You no longer know who you are as a Catholic institution.

It pains me to write this letter to you. I ask that you go before the Blessed Sacrament and look into your soul – the soul of priest – and reverse this decision before more scandal is brought to the Church.

You and the students under your pastoral charge will be in my prayers and Lenten sacrifices.

Street outreach- at the biggest and busiest abortion mills with interns recruited from across the U.S. and even overseas.

Since last May, our "American Center for Pro-Life Action"has recruited 59 dynamic young, idealistic, and energetic interns to help us save lives in NYC, from colleges and emerging pro-life groups from across the US, Spain, Ecuador, the UK and even Nigeria.

We teach them and they assist us tremendously for an average of six weeks each, in crisis pregnancy counseling, and in carrying out "Operation FrontLine" mobile clinic outreach at abortion mills, and "40 Days for Life" campaigns.

A key element in this plan is having our Bronx LifeHouse, where we provide free lodging and meals, but it takes heat, A/C, light, food, and Metro cards to keep the interns going.

To keep our life saving pace going of close to 185 turnarounds per month, through this spring and early summer, we need $100,000and we need it fast.

Would you pleasehelp me fund a small army of interns this summer to live in our "Bronx Life-House, today?

Fr. Frank Pavone's endorsement of our intern program, sums up the benefits of employing young pro-lifers.

"Every day the pro-life movement grows younger, as so many youth - aware that they are survivors - commit themselves to protecting children in the womb. This is why the activities of the American Center for Pro-life Action in New York City, under the direction of Chris Slattery, are so timely and crucial to the success of the movement. Youthful enthusiasm is not enough. It has to be accompanied by training from experts and seasoned activists and strategists. I have full confidence that the program Chris Slattery has put together is top-notch and will benefit youth from around the world. I am happy not only to offer it my endorsement but also to participate in the training of these young leaders."

Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director, Priests for Life

.

Would you consider a generous gift of at least $24 ($1 for each of our 24 years), or $100, $250, $500, or even a sacrificial $1000 to help us fund this summer's crop of great Life-Savers?

Our movement's future is in the hands of our young people. As they save lives here, they take home what they've learned.

Together, we can reach and teach them the right ways to save lives, if we have the funds we so badly need.

Many children and pregnant moms will be eternally grateful, as will I.

P.S. God Bless you for your far sighted generosity. A sacrificial, but tax deductible gift, right now, of $100, $250, or even $500, by Credit card, Checks or PayPal, will really help us toward meeting our $100,000 spring and early summer needs. Imagine American college students who start planning crisis counseling centers on their college campuses, or choosing full time pro-life work. Imagine us helping our incoming group of Europeans to help open life-saving clinics in their big cities. Imagine us teaching Spaniards how to run sidewalk counseling operations at their busy abortion mills.

P.P.S. EMC has over 24 years experience operating life centers with medical services, and ultrasound. Last summer our interns helped us save close to 800 children from abortion. Your help and prayers for EMC now will mean this summer 25 + full time interns will be able to come here and train properly.With your help we will save many mothers and children in New York City, and around the world!

Obama argues in an unsigned law review article that “the state may…have a more compelling interest in ensuring that fetuses carried to term do not suffer from debilitating injuries than it does in ensuring that any particular fetus is born.”

March 25, 2009

A great point made towards the end of this - families spend a quarter million dollars for a "Catholic" Notre Dame University education. So the last thing they'll hear in an official capacity on their campus is a commencement talk by a pro-abortion fanatic (whose recent decisions will kill hundreds of thousands of Third World unborn babies).

STUDENT COALITION STATEMENT ON THE 2009 UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME COMMENCEMENT CEREMONIES

In defense of the unborn, we wish to express our deepest opposition to Reverend John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.’s invitation of President Barack Obama to be the University of Notre Dame’s principal commencement speaker and the recipient of an honorary degree. Our objection is not a matter of political partisanship, but of President Obama’s hostility to the Catholic Church’s teachings on the sanctity of human life at its earliest stages. His recent dedication of federal funds to overseas abortions and to embryonic stem cell research will directly result in the deaths of thousands of innocent human beings. We cannot sit by idly while the University honors someone who believes that an entire class of human beings is undeserving of the most basic of all legal rights, the right to live.

The University’s decision runs counter to the policy of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops against honoring pro-choice politicians. In their June 2004 statement Catholics in Political Life, the bishops said, “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors, or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” Fr. Jenkins defends his invitation by saying that it does not honor or suggest support for the President’s views on abortion, but rather support for his leadership. But our “fundamental moral principles” must be respected at all times. And the principle that requires us to refrain from the direct killing of the innocent has a special status even among the most fundamental principles. President Obama’s actions have consistently shown contempt for this principle, and he has sought political gain by making light of its clear political implications. Leadership that puts the lives of the most innocent at risk is leadership we must disdain. In the face of President Obama’s actions, Father Jenkins’ words ring hollow.

It is a great irony that the University has chosen to award President Obama an honorary law degree. As the oldest Catholic law school in the country, the Notre Dame Law School states that its mission is “to facilitate greater understanding of and commitment to the relationship between law and social justice.” The social justice issue of our day is the deliberate, legal attack on the most vulnerable members of society, the unborn. To award a Notre Dame law degree to a lawyer and politician who has used the law to deny equality to the unborn diminishes the value of the degree itself.

Additionally, Fr. Jenkins has placed some of his students in a moral dilemma as to whether they should attend their own graduation. Many pro-life seniors, along with their families, are conflicted about whether to participate in the commencement ceremony. The lack of concern for these devoted sons and daughters of Notre Dame, who love this University and the Catholic principles on which it was built, is shameful.

In response to the University’s decision, we pledge ourselves to acts of witness that will be characterized by respect, prayerfulness, outspoken fidelity to the Church, and true concern for the good of our University. It is appropriate that only members of the Notre Dame community lead all such protests, and we ask outside groups to respect our responsibilities in this regard. Over the next several weeks, in response to this scandal, our organizations will host various academic and religious events to engage the University community. We request any groups who are committed to respectful actions to support our efforts, thereby ensuring a unified front and a more compelling public witness.

In Notre Dame,

Notre Dame Right to LifeThe Irish Rover Student NewspaperNotre Dame College RepublicansThe University of Notre Dame Anscombe SocietyNotre Dame Identity ProjectMilitia of the ImmaculataChildren of MaryOrestes Brownson CouncilNotre Dame Law School Right to LifeNotre Dame Law St Thomas More SocietyThe Federalist Society at Notre Dame Law School

"We hope for this to be the basis of an engagement with him." So explains Notre Dame's president, the Rev. John Jenkins, as he discusses the university's choice of Barack Obama as this year's commencement speaker. In yesterday's student newspaper "The Observer," where the quotation appears, the thought is introduced with another helpful bromide: The honor accorded President Obama, it is reported, will be a "catalyst for dialogue."

Now, if the president were going to Notre Dame to engage in dialogue, that would be one thing. But Mr. Obama will not be going to Notre Dame to "dialogue." He will be going to help advance his agenda.

At the center of that agenda is abortion. Leave aside his enthusiasm for the Freedom of Choice Act, or the way he misrepresented his role in killing an Illinois state ban on partial-birth abortion. Already as president, Mr. Obama has ended restrictions that prevented taxpayer dollars from funding abortions overseas; opened a path for using taxpayer dollars to encourage the destruction of embryos for research; and taken aim at a "conscience clause" designed to protect doctors, nurses and others from being forced to participate in procedures (including abortion) that violate their consciences.

>>>>>>

In the end, the result is moral incoherence. It is an incoherence in which abortion-rights advocates have the most to gain, because it demoralizes those who support the cause of life while removing fears of even the slightest social sanction for those who do not. And it is an incoherence we see all across American Catholic life today.

In our intellectual life, this incoherence gives us a college president who tells the campus paper that honoring an abortion-rights president is consistent with the bishops' statement that such leaders "should not be given awards, honors, or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."

On Friday, March 21, Father John Jenkins, CSC, phoned to inform me that President Obama had accepted his invitation to speak to the graduating class at Notre Dame and receive an honorary degree. We spoke shortly before the announcement was made public at the White House press briefing. It was the first time that I had been informed that Notre Dame had issued this invitation.

President Obama has recently reaffirmed, and has now placed in public policy, his long-stated unwillingness to hold human life as sacred. While claiming to separate politics from science, he has in fact separated science from ethics and has brought the American government, for the first time in history, into supporting direct destruction of innocent human life.

This will be the 25th Notre Dame graduation during my time as bishop. After much prayer, I have decided not to attend the graduation. I wish no disrespect to our president, I pray for him and wish him well. I have always revered the Office of the Presidency. But a bishop must teach the Catholic faith “in season and out of season,” and he teaches not only by his words — but by his actions.

My decision is not an attack on anyone, but is in defense of the truth about human life.

I have in mind also the statement of the U.S. Catholic Bishops in 2004. “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” Indeed, the measure of any Catholic institution is not only what it stands for, but also what it will not stand for.

I have spoken with Professor Mary Ann Glendon, who is to receive the Laetare Medal. I have known her for many years and hold her in high esteem. We are both teachers, but in different ways. I have encouraged her to accept this award and take the opportunity such an award gives her to teach.

Even as I continue to ponder in prayer these events, which many have found shocking, so must Notre Dame. Indeed, as a Catholic University, Notre Dame must ask itself, if by this decision it has chosen prestige over truth.

Tomorrow, we celebrate as Catholics the moment when our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, became a child in the womb of his most holy mother. Let us ask Our Lady to intercede for the university named in her honor, that it may recommit itself to the primacy of truth over prestige.

March 23, 2009

"Choose Life" plates are avialable in 23 states - proceeds go to fund adoption agencies. But years ago the NY State DMV decided they were "patently offensive."

The article contains the usual dissembling by pro-abortion people - in this case Polly Rothstein the retired head of Westchester Coalition for Legal Abortion. but the article is fair, with Elizabeth Rex interviewed, and the reporter did his own investigations into the DMV and state rules.

When they first asked the state Department of Motor Vehicles to issue the license plates - showing a crayon-like drawing of a boy and girl with "choose life" printed underneath - they were rejected with a letter that called the message "patently offensive," Rex and Shafer said. (The DMV would not comment.) So, more than four years ago, the couple sued the DMV for the plates.

The DMV imposed a moratorium on any new plates, except those ordered by the state Legislature.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Joseph Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League, 773-777-2900

Chicago, Ill.—Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League and its national director are calling on Notre Dame University President, Rev. John Jenkins, to withdraw his invitation to Barack Obama to deliver a commencement address there on May 17.

"Over the first two months of his administration, Barack Obama has established himself as the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history," said League National Director Joe Scheidler, himself a graduate of Notre Dame, a Catholic university. "My alma mater should not be providing a platform for this president."

"Starting from his first week in office, President Obama has enacted a string of executive orders, appointments and policy decisions that contradict Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life—a teaching that Notre Dame is supposed to uphold," said Scheidler.

Among the pro-abortion actions Obama has taken in just two months in office, Scheidler lists:

Overturning of the Mexico City Policy, which had prohibited U.S. funds from being used to promote or provide abortions overseas

Working to overturn conscience protections for healthcare workers, forcing them to cooperate in abortion or risk losing their jobs

Appointing pro-abortion Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who has close ties to late-term abortionist George Tiller, to head the Department of Health and Human Services

Dedicating federal funds to harvest embryonic stem cells for research at the expense of the most defenseless members of the human family

Scheidler is calling on concerned Catholics, especially Notre Dame alumni, to contact Jenkins and urge him to withdraw the Obama invitation.

If Notre Dame does not disinvite Obama, Scheidler says, the Notre Dame campus can expect a massive pro-life protest on graduation day.

"Father Jenkins cannot expect pro-life Catholics to stand back and allow the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history to make a mockery of Notre Dame's Catholic identity," Scheidler said.

March 20, 2009

But none of them have given Executive Orders to fund the killing of hundreds of thousands of unborn Third World babies (reversal of the Mexico City policy, recent funding of UNFPA), or allow the dissection of living human embryos.

The Cardinal Newman Society already has a website up to protest this outrage. Besides allowing you to sign an online petition, the site has the phone number (it appears to be the general University number), fax number, email address, and mailing address for Fr. Jenkins, President of Notre Dame.

March 19, 2009

The Catholic Key is the blog of the Kansas City Diocese newspaper. Here is an insightful comment from a recent posting about a pro-abortion Catholic who is the nominee to a newly created position - Ambassador-at-Large for Women's Issues.

If, God willing, the abortion regime someday ends and historians looking back in horror on the period make their report, two things will be true: 1. The Catholic Church was the strongest voice in the defense of life. 2. The abortion regime would have been impossible without the active encouragement of many individual Catholics.

We have a link to attorney Wesley Smith's bioethics website on the right side of our weblog. Here is his excellent short essay from the Weekly Standard on the Obama two step regarding dissecting living human embryos.

That opaque notice tells us absolutely nothing. But a little research makes clear why the administration was so terse: The 2007 executive order required the government to make a point of funding what are known as "alternative methods" for obtaining pluripotent stem cells. These are procedures that don't require the destruction of embryos to derive these powerful cells, which are theoretically able to become any tissue in the body. It is this capacity that scientists say makes embryonic stem cells so valuable.

And indeed, the big news in biotechnology in 2007-08--proving the wisdom of the Bush policy--was the development of a technique known as "cell reprogramming," in which ordinary human skin and other cells are transformed into "induced pluripotent stem cells" (IPSC). This achievement and subsequent advances in research were deemed so impressive and important that the journal Sciencenamed the development of the IPSC as the scientific "breakthrough of the year" for 2008.

What makes Obama's stealth action so maddening is that he claimed to support "groundbreaking work to convert ordinary human cells into ones that resemble embryonic stem cells" in his stem-cell speech. But what he did was eradicate the very executive order that guaranteed that such science would be federally funded--an order that as far as I know nobody was lobbying to revoke.

>>>>>>

I can think of only two reasons for this unwarranted revocation: vindictiveness against all things "Bush" or considered by the left to be "pro-life"; or a desire to get the public to view unborn human life as morally akin to a crop ripe for the harvest so as to open the door to funding destructive embryo and human cloning research--actions advocated, not coincidentally, by the New York Times in the immediate wake of Obama's stem-cell executive order.

Wait, there's a third potential reason: both of the above.

President Obama's silent revocation of alternative-methods funding as a special project of the federal government betrayed the concerted attempts made over the last eight years to find a common way forward in one of the most ethically contentious areas of biotechnological research. So much for bridging the country's cultural and political divides.

At least 3 percent of District residents have HIV or AIDS, a total that far surpasses the 1 percent threshold that constitutes a "generalized and severe" epidemic, according to a report scheduled to be released by health officials tomorrow.

That translates into 2,984 residents per every 100,000 over the age of 12 -- or 15,120 -- according to the 2008 epidemiology report by the District's HIV/AIDS office.

"Our rates are higher than West Africa," said Shannon L. Hader, director of the District's HIV/AIDS Administration, who once led the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's work in Zimbabwe. "They're on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya."

"We have every mode of transmission" -- men having sex with men, heterosexual and injected drug use -- "going up, all on the rise, and we have to deal with them," Hader said.

****************

Among its findings: Almost half of those who had connections to the parts of the city with the highest AIDS prevalence and poverty rates said they had overlapping sexual partners within the past 12 months, three in five said they were aware of their own HIV status, and three in 10 said they had used a condom the last time they had sex.

Is this because Washington residents don't know about condoms? Doubtful.

The answer of course, is Chastity.

While disparaging the Pope's remarks, even this NY Times editorial admits it's true.

I am not religious. I do not believe that personhood is conferred upon conception. But I also do not believe that a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a hangnail and deserves no more respect than an appendix. Moreover, given the protean power of embryonic manipulation, the temptation it presents to science and the well-recorded human propensity for evil even in the pursuit of good, lines must be drawn. I suggested the bright line prohibiting the deliberate creation of human embryos solely for the instrumental purpose of research -- a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end.

On this, Obama has nothing to say. He leaves it entirely to the scientists. This is more than moral abdication. It is acquiescence to the mystique of "science" and its inherent moral benevolence. How anyone as sophisticated as Obama can believe this within living memory of Mengele and Tuskegee and the fake (and coercive) South Korean stem cell research is hard to fathom.

That part of the ceremony, watched from the safe distance of my office, made me uneasy. The other part -- the ostentatious issuance of a memorandum on "restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making" -- would have made me walk out.

Restoring? The implication, of course, is that while Obama is guided solely by science, Bush was driven by dogma, ideology and politics.

What an outrage. Bush's nationally televised stem cell speech was the most morally serious address on medical ethics ever given by an American president. It was so scrupulous in presenting the best case for both his view and the contrary view that until the last few minutes, the listener had no idea where Bush would come out.

Obama's address was morally unserious in the extreme. It was populated, as his didactic discourses always are, with a forest of straw men. Such as his admonition that we must resist the "false choice between sound science and moral values." Yet, exactly 2 minutes and 12 seconds later he went on to declare that he would never open the door to the "use of cloning for human reproduction."

Does he not think that a cloned human would be of extraordinary scientific interest? And yet he banned it.

Is he so obtuse as not to see that he had just made a choice of ethics over science? Yet, unlike Bush, who painstakingly explained the balance of ethical and scientific goods he was trying to achieve, Obama did not even pretend to make the case why some practices are morally permissible and others not.

Research shows that adult and umbilical-cord stem cells provide the materials needed for stem-cell research - embryonic stem cells are not needed to cure and treat diseases. So why is the pro-embryonic-research lobby so loath to admit this? Because if we say that destroying human embryos for scientific research is wrong and unnecessary, it's harder to say that abortion is fine.

Pro-choicers almost never argue that there's nothing wrong with abortion. They give justifications - usually, the mother's health and well-being - because they (implicitly, anyway) understand that the taking of human life needs to be justified.

But with research that destroys embryos, there are no mothers - just embryos orphaned in the lab. And looming behind the stem-cell issue is cloning: The scientists can make more embryos when they run out.

Will we allow a whole industry of conceiving and harvesting human life, if it's for the greater good? And if it's OK to create and destroy human life for medical research, why limit abortion at all?

March 11, 2009

In a White House ceremony yesterday, President Barack Obama signed an executive order to allow federal funding of research that will require the killing of human embryos.

This order reverses a policy instituted by former President George W. Bush in August 2001, which funded research on already-existing stem cell lines without encouraging any further destruction of human life.

"It is a sad day when the federal government will fund research that exploits living members of the human species as raw material for research," said Douglas Johnson, a spokesman for the National Right to Life Committee. "Obama's order also places our society on a very steep, very slippery slope. Many researchers will not be satisfied to use only so-called surplus embryos. Many researchers are already demanding federal support for research in which human embryos would be created for the specific purpose of research, through human cloning and other methods, and there was nothing in the President's remarks today to limit NIH to the use of so-called surplus embryos created in IVF clinics.

"This sets the stage for an attack on the Dickey-Wicker law, which since 1995 has been a provision of the annual appropriations bills for federal health programs. This law prohibits federal funding of 'the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death . . ..' Any member of Congress who votes for legislation to repeal this law is voting to allow federal funding of human embryo farms, created through the use of human cloning."

Much of the press coverage anticipating Obama's order continued to ignore or downplay the striking advances made in recent years in research using stem cells from non-embryonic sources, including adult stem cells and reprogrammed adult body cells (iPSCs). Do No Harm, a coalition of scientists and researchers opposed to embryo-killing stem cell research, has posted a list of over 70 different disorders for which there have been one or more peer-reviewed scientific studies showing a measure of positive benefits in human patients.

In contrast, embryonic stem cells have yet to benefit a single human patient, and have proven most adept at generating tumors.

Obama also issued a second directive purporting to free federally sponsored scientific research from the influence of "ideology." Johnson commented, "Giving an absolutely free hand to elites of specialists can result in the ideology of the specialists being imposed on society as a whole. Scientific endeavors that utilize human subjects or otherwise pose dangers to innocent human life must always be subject to oversight by society as a whole, through regular democratic processes."

Obama's executive order reversed and repudiated restrictions placed on the research by his predecessor, George W. Bush, freeing labs across the country to start working with the cells, which can give rise to any kind of cell in the body.

Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' committee on pro-life activities, called Obama's decision "a sad victory of politics over science and ethics."

"This action is morally wrong because it encourages the destruction of innocent human life, treating vulnerable human beings as mere products to be harvested," he added.

The Catholic Church, other religious groups and pro-life advocates oppose such research -- which scientists hope can lead to cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's -- because it involves the destruction of embryos.

The Catholic Church supports adult stem cell research, which has made advances in recent years, because it does not involve the destruction of embryos.

An article in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano on Tuesday said "a real democracy" should be founded on protection of human dignity in every phase of its existence.

Separately, Osservatore's editor-in-chief Gian Maria Vian told an Italian newspaper that Obama "cannot claim a monopoly on being the Good Samaritan" by saying he supports embryonic stem cell research in order to help alleviate human suffering.

Predictably, there are dissenters to the Vatican and Bishops position. At the end of the Reuters piece they quote the former editor of the Jesuit publication America, who hopse there is a "middle ground".

Washington, D.C. - Today the Susan B. Anthony List responded to President Barack Obama’s decision to reverse President Bush’s policy of allowing taxpayer funding for embryonic stem cell research without encouraging the further destruction of nascent human life. Obama’s latest executive order allows for billions in taxpayer funds to be directed toward embryonic stem cell research.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List, released the following statement:

“Compassion can never be built upon callous disregard for human life. True scientific integrity is advancing successful science that respects moral standards and the inherent value of human life at all stages. Our country is facing an acute economic crisis, and it is shocking to learn that President Obama’s first priority is promoting the idea that American taxpayers should fund the destruction of human life.

“There is no coincidence that this policy reversal was timed to secure the maximum amount of taxpayer funds. The National Institutes of Health received $10.4 billion dollars in the Obama Stimulus Package. Today’s executive order reversing the Bush policy allows the President to fast-track billions of taxpayer dollars toward embryonic stem cell research – all without the benefit of public or Congressional debate.

“This decision comes on the heels of several executive decisions to fund the destruction of human life at taxpayers’ expense. Already President Obama has directed American tax dollars toward international abortion providers by overturning the pro-life Mexico City Policy. His decision to fund the United Nations Population Fund will subsidize the destruction of unborn children around the world. Add these decisions to his expected rollback of conscience protections for pro-life medical professionals and we find an alarming trend: respect for human life, and the consciences of American taxpayers even, are both dismissed in favor of an abortion industry bailout and the funding of immoral science that has yet to yield a single success.”

Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research has been in place since August 2001. Since then, funding has reached $40 million per year for the research. Despite this funding, all the recent advances in stem cell technologies have been derived from adult stem cells harvested without destroying human life. To date, adult stem cells have been used to develop over 70 treatments in human patients.

The Susan B. Anthony List is a nationwide network of Americans, over 152,000 residing in all 50 states, dedicated to mobilizing, advancing, and representing pro-life women in politics. Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in the political process.

President Obama signed an executive order today on stem cell research; it was part of his “Scientific Integrity Presidential Memorandum.” In response, Catholic League president Bill Donohue said the following:

“President Obama acknowledged that he supports ‘groundbreaking work to convert ordinary human cells into ones that resemble embryonic stem cells.’ So do we. What he doesn’t seem to realize is that the enormous progress that has already been made in this area largely undercuts his decision to fund embryonic stem cell research. After all, if the same, or similar, results can be obtained without endangering embryos, on what basis can their destruction be warranted?

“Obama seems to know that he is in dangerous territory, but fails to say why. For example, he insists that embryonic stem cell research demands ‘proper guidelines and strict oversight’ so that ‘the perils can be avoided.’ What perils is he talking about? If the killing of nascent human life isn’t an issue—which he apparently thinks it isn’t—then what are the perils associated with this research? It is starkly remindful of the position of pro-abortion advocates: they always say we should have fewer abortions, but never say why.

“Obama’s adamant rejection of human cloning is welcome. However, it is not enough to say that it would be a ‘dangerous, profoundly wrong’ thing to do. We need to know why. For example, what principle is operative? Science teaches, and the Catholic Church accepts, that human life begins at fertilization. That being the case, the Church reasons, we are morally compelled not to treat human life—beginning at conception and lasting until natural death—as if it were mere fodder for research. Obama, and others, are free to disagree, but they are morally obligated to state the principle upon which they draw their conclusions. He most certainly has not.

“In short, not only are Obama’s executive order and scientific memo mostly troubling, we still don’t know why he believes what he believes.”

The Hudson Valley Coalition for Life joins countless voices of reason that question the timing of President Obama's Executive decision on embryonic stem cell research and experimentation, its innate abuse of human rights, and its implications for society, as well as for the future of our country.

Those who believed that an Obama presidency would be centrist in its actions and policies will have to rethink that one. Fifty days into his Administration President Obama has again wielded his Executive power and effectively shut down opposition and debate on several important actions that affect human life and that challenge the "self-evident" truth that the dignity of human beings and their right to life come not from the vacillating views of another - not even a President.

On March 10 President Obama signed an Executive order that reversed President Bush's measured stance on embryonic stem cell research. Where Bush sought to tread lightly on the obvious moral and ethical issues involved with using nascent human life for experiment and research by halting new experimentation, Obama has opted for the heavy "footprint". Obama opened the gates for expanded U.S. taxpayer funding for embryonic stem cell research - billions of dollars. He uses arguable polling data that sites a majority of Americans supporting this move, but we question even the underlying understanding of such a poll by its participants. Existing alternative adult stem cell methods, including the recent development of embryonic-like stem cells, have shown many successes (70+) in clinical applications and cures, while embryonic stem cell research has shown little immediate promise and instead major medical problems like tumor growth. Few Americans (including the media) know or understand all the facts on this complex topic. Factual obsfuscation by many in the media on the stem cell debate has been quite successful. While it is the nature and the power of the media to direct or deflect and drive an issue on emotion rather than facts, we had hoped for the promised broader discussion prior to an action like this that "does harm".

In addition to this assault on human life, soon after his inauguration and his rhetoric to reduce abortions, President Obama reversed the "Mexico City Policy" and sent U.S. taxpayer dollars overseas again to organizations that promote and perform abortions. The Bush policy had reversed the Clinton stance.

Our compassion takes to heart the suffering of those who look with great anticipation for a cure for themselves or for a loved one. Our position will always be that the use of taxpayer monies for experimental research should be measured, especially when serious ethical problems exist now and will compound in the future. History has taught us to be wary, even of one's fellow man. Our founder's political system of checks and balances alludes not merely to a financial balance sheet, but to the protection of the most vulnerable among us. To continue to ignore this prescient core principle invites the unthinkable upon ourselves and our posterity.

Mr. Obama's executive order overturned an attempt by President George W. Bush in 2001 to do justice to both the promise of stem-cell science and the demands of ethics. The Bush policy was to allow the government to fund research on existing embryonic stem-cell lines, where the embryos in question had already been destroyed. But it would not fund, or in any way incentivize, the ongoing destruction of human embryos.

For years, this policy was attacked by advocates of embryo-destructive research. Mr. Bush and the "religious right" were depicted as antiscience villains and embryonic stem-cell scientists and their allies were seen as the beleaguered saviors of the sick. In reality, Mr. Bush's policy was one of moderation. It did not ban new embryo-destructive research (the president had no power to do that), and it did not fund new embryo-destructive research.

"Moderate" Mr. Obama's policy is not. It will promote a whole new industry of embryo creation and destruction, including the creation of human embryos by cloning for research in which they are destroyed. It forces American taxpayers, including those who see the deliberate taking of human life in the embryonic stage as profoundly unjust, to be complicit in this practice.

Mr. Obama made a big point in his speech of claiming to bring integrity back to science policy, and his desire to remove the previous administration's ideological agenda from scientific decision-making. This claim of taking science out of politics is false and misguided on two counts.

... the Obama policy is itself blatantly political. It is red meat to his Bush-hating base, yet pays no more than lip service to recent scientific breakthroughs that make possible the production of cells that are biologically equivalent to embryonic stem cells without the need to create or kill human embryos. Inexplicably -- apart from political motivations -- Mr. Obama revoked not only the Bush restrictions on embryo destructive research funding, but also the 2007 executive order that encourages the National Institutes of Health to explore non-embryo-destructive sources of stem cells.

... The question of whether to destroy human embryos for research purposes is not fundamentally a scientific question; it is a moral and civic question about the proper uses, ambitions and limits of science. It is a question about how we will treat members of the human family at the very dawn of life; about our willingness to seek alternative paths to medical progress that respect human dignity.

That is why today, I am also signing a Presidential Memorandum directing the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision making. To ensure that in this new Administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions.

In many ways, I can understand why President Obama selected Governor Sebelius. As I have acknowledged on several other occasions she is a very bright and gifted leader. In many important areas, she represents well Catholic social teaching. She has advocated for more affordable housing for the poor, she has worked to expand access to health care for economically disadvantaged children, and she has supported incentives encouraging adoption.

Yet, on the fundamental moral issue of protecting innocent human life, Governor Sebelius, throughout her career, has been an outspoken advocate for legalized abortion. For this reason her appointment to HHS is particularly troubling.

President Obama has made a top priority for his administration health care reform. The Church certainly supports the objectives of such reform: to make quality health care accessible and affordable for everyone. Of course, there is vigorous debate on how to best achieve this important goal. I claim no competence or expertise in this area.

The Secretary for HHS will be a key figure in developing and implementing the Health Care Reform for the nation. There are those, who have great influence within the Obama administration and with whom Governor Sebelius has been associated throughout her political career (e.g. Planned Parenthood, National Organization of Women, NARAL, etc.), who want abortion not only to be permitted in this country but considered a right.

If they are successful in their efforts to have abortion included amongst “basic health care services,” then it is entirely possible that doctors, nurses and health care institutions will be compelled to cooperate in the provision of abortion. Those advocating for abortion to be considered a “right” would love to see Catholic hospitals faced with the choice to either cooperate in providing abortions or close.

The protection of conscience rights for individuals and institutions is extremely important. The Obama administration has already expressed a desire to rescind the policies of the Bush administration to strengthen conscience protection for health care workers and providers. President Obama, when he was Senator Obama, co-sponsored the so-called Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) that was introduced in the previous congress. That version of FOCA would have, among other things, forced health care providers to cooperate in abortion. Regretfully, Governor Sebelius throughout her political career has been associated with and supported by Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL and others advocating for abortion to be considered a “health care right.”

Even more troubling is that earlier in her political career Governor Sebelius accepted political contributions from Wichita’s notorious late-term abortionist, Dr. George Tiller. When this was no longer politically opportune, Dr. Tiller established a political action committee through which he donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to support the election and re-election of Governor Sebelius, as well as other equally staunch supporters of legalized abortion.

Kansas has one of the most restrictive laws regarding late-term abortions. Yet, it has become, in large part because of Dr. Tiller, the late-term abortion capital of the Midwest. How is this possible? It is possible because our current laws have not been enforced. Each time the Kansas Legislature has passed statutes in an effort to improve enforcement of late-term abortion restrictions, Governor Sebelius has vetoed these laws.

As you are aware, because of her long history both as a legislator and Governor of consistently supporting legalized abortion and after many months of dialogue, I requested Governor Sebelius not to present herself for communion. I did this in the hope that it would motivate Governor Sebelius to reconsider her support for what is an intrinsic evil – the destruction of innocent human life by abortion. I also took this pastoral action to protect others from being misled by the Governor’s public support and advocacy for legalized abortion.

In order to combat what its sees as inevitable, the Catholic Church launched a "Fight FOCA" postcard campaign aimed at Congress in January. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-Mo., who participated in an anti-FOCA rally last month at St. Anthony's Catholic School in Sullivan, said he has received "thousands" of postcards over the last month including "a stack 2 feet high" Wednesday.

"People have worked 30-some years to protect the rights of the unborn and FOCA would undo many of their efforts," Luetkemeyer said.

Keehan said shutting down Catholic hospitals would tear the fabric of the American health care system.

"Catholic health care plays such an important role in communities across this nation," she said, that Americans are "not going to sacrifice their health care facility, which employs so many, cares for so many, and has been part of their community for many years by forcing them to do abortions."

March 05, 2009

The Archbishop, after counseling the Governor of Kansas, publicly asked her not to take communion. Here is a good interview explaining his position. Hit the link for the whole interview; an excerpt below -

OSV: Is there anything you could do from your standpoint, in terms of the persuasive pulpit, in terms of Gov. Sebelius and HHS?

Archbishop Naumann: The pastoral action I took, my hope was that it would provoke, in a good sense, Gov. Sebelius to reconsider her position and to have a change of heart. I have asked the people here in the archdiocese to pray for her and I pray for her regularly too because I am concerned about her own spiritual welfare and you know her involvement with this intrinsic evil. One of the tragedies of this appointment, it places her where she is either going to have to go against the person who appointed her or she is going to be persisting in these positions that promote, encourage and support abortion. So, I’m concerned about her. I think the other thing, though, that why I did what I did was to protect others from being misled by her actions and I think as a Church, those of us responsible for teaching in the Church, we have to continue to make that clear to our people that this just isn’t acceptable. It’s not a morally coherent position to say I’m personally opposed but publicly I’m going to do all of these things that support abortion.

March 04, 2009

The Casey position appears to be that family planning "reduces abortions", so let's move funds from family planning groups that don't promote abortion to family planning groups that do promote abortion.

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, considered by some to be one of the few pro-life Democrats in Congress, is defending his repeated votes for international abortion funding. He is defending his votes against the Mexico City Policy despite two rebukes from his Catholics bishop.

In a letter to the senator, Bishop Martino accused Casey of “cooperating with … evil” by casting the pro-abortion vote.

In the letter, published in Thursday’s edition of The Catholic Light, the diocesan newspaper, he urges Casey to live up to his Catholic faith by voting to “oppose abortion."

But Casey office continues to claim that his vote for foreign abortion promotion does not violate his pro-life views.

Casey’s spokesman Larry Smar told CNSNews that Casey's vote can be considered pro-life because it support family planning efforts that supposedly reduce abortions.

“Currently, more than half of all unintended pregnancies end in abortion. Very simply, fewer unintended pregnancies means fewer abortions,” he claimed. “Women who are not pregnant don't have abortions.”

“In accordance with his pro-life views, Senator Casey voted recently to rescind Mexico City Policy, thus allowing U.S. funding of family planning services to international aid organizations,” Smar added.

However, he failed to note that the vote shifts money from non-abortion groups that conduct family planning efforts in other countries to two of the world's largest abortion businesses, Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes International.

Bishop Martino and the pro-life movement disagree with Smar's assessment of the vote on Casey's behalf and correctly identify it as a pro-abortion one because it forces public funds into the hands of groups that will do abortions and lobby other nations to rescind their pro-life laws on abortion.

Bishop Martino said Casey vote against the Mexico City Policy “will mean the deaths of thousands of unborn children" and reminded him that “this is an offense against life and a denial of our Catholic teaching on the dignity of every human being.”

Martino said Casey should reverse his vote because his “responsibilities as a Catholic … exceed even those of your office.”

“Your failure to reverse this vote will regrettably mean that you persist formally in cooperating with the evil brought about by this hideous and unnecessary policy,” he wrote. “As I have done several times before, I offer to make myself available to you to discuss the grave concerns that I raise here.”

March 02, 2009

Fr. Jonathan Morris, among other things, is a contributor to FOX News. He's writing about the new Washington State law allowing for assisted suicide. This is from his FOX blog. Hit the link to read the whole article.

...if we scratch the surface, the whole scenario starts to get very messy. First, the new Washington law prohibits doctors from documenting their patient’s real cause of death if it is from doctor-prescribed drugs — even when they are certain the patient has taken them. Instead, doctors must certify the cause of death as the patient’s original illness. Yes, in Washington, what rational people would consider malpractice–lying about the cause of death–is now required by law.

This is a perfect example of the Machiavellian politics surrounding state laws that oblige citizens to subject truth (in this case medical science) to convenience, for whatever sordid reason. According to the law’s supporters, the reason for this measure is to protect a patient’s right to privacy (apparently, an absolute right that in this case trumps even transparency). As it turns out, this stipulation in the law makes things very convenient for the of the euthanasia movement. Without this end-of-life documentation, it is impossible to produce definitive data about how many people will have used doctor-prescribed drugs to end their lives in the Evergreen State.

The second great reason for concern is the increasing financial benefits assisted suicide laws provide to strapped state budgets and to HMOs. Even before our current financial crisis, there was already evidence that patients in Oregon had been offered free suicide drugs as a less costly alternative to expensive healing or palliative medicines. A case in point was Barbara Wagner, a 64-year-old Oregon resident, who was informed last May that her cancer had returned. Her doctor prescribed a new drug that could extend her life, but Oregon’s Medicaid program sent her a form letter saying it would not cover the cost of the drugs. In the same unsigned letter she was also offered information about an affordable alternative: Medicaid would cover “comfort care”, including “physician aid in dying” (the lethal drugs would have cost the state less than $100). Barbara died in October, but first left this moving video, pleading with the voters of Washington state not to let the same thing happen to them. Eventually, the director of Oregon’s Medicaid program admitted the organization sends such letters to patients whom they think have little chance of surviving.

This says it all - except for pointing out that Tiller advertises worldwide his second and third trimester abortion specialty ...:

OBAMA CHOOSES PRO-ABORTION ZEALOT FOR HHS

March 2, 2009

Catholic League president Bill Donohue speaks to the nomination of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius as the new secretary for health and human services (HHS):

“Last week, President Obama called Milwaukee Archbishop Timothy Dolan to congratulate him on his appointment as the new archbishop of New York, effective April 15. That was a nice statement. But it didn’t cost him anything. His appointment of Kathleen Sebelius—one of the most extreme pro-abortion zealots in the nation—to head HHS was not a nice statement. And it will cost him.

“Catholics do not expect that abortion-rights presidents will go out of their way to choose pro-life Catholics to be in their administration. But they also don’t expect them to go out of their way to offend them. Obama has done just that. As I said last night on the CBS Evening News, ‘She is the champion of abortion rights right through term, and for Obama to choose somebody who sews such division within the Catholic community to head HHS really is an insult to Catholics.’ Indeed, she has been publicly criticized by the last three archbishops of Kansas for her radical views on abortion.

“Sebelius is best friends with Dr. George Tiller, one of the most radical abortion doctors in American history. She has wined and dined him, and has accepted money from him. The fact that he has performed more than 60,000 abortions doesn’t faze her. None of which bodes well given her duties at HHS. Moreover, she has worked against the health-care rights of women: she refused to license abortion clinics in Kansas.

“Sebelius once signed a law that calls for the killer of a pregnant woman to be charged with two murders. Someone should ask her who the other person is.”